Tracking Suspects By Their Family Genes
Should police be able to use convicts’ DNA files to solve crimes involving their relatives?
A serial killer is on the loose. He’s left behind DNA, but his profile is not in law enforcement databases. Should authorities take it to the next step, and see if any of the killer’s relatives are in the system, thereby providing an important clue?
This is what occurs in California, where police can run what is called a familial DNA search that scans the database to look for partial matches. Earlier this month, a hit led to a breakthrough in the Grim Sleeper serial killer case, and the arrest of Lonnie David Franklin Jr. followed. (It was his son’s DNA on file, though Franklin’s would have been if authorities had collected it in 2004 as they were directed to do.)
The Grim Sleeper case brings up two conflicting schools of thought.
n If there’s a way to scientifically apprehend a serial killer or rapist before another victim is harmed, then do it.
As Frederick Bieber, an associate professor of pathology at Harvard Medical School and a member of the Virginia Department of Forensic Science’s scientific advisory committee told the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “As an individual forensic geneticist, I think it is unconscionable not to use this method when there is a continuing threat to public safety [from] an ongoing, serious string of crimes.”
n Convicts have given up privacy rights by violating the law, but their family members have not. This is overreaching by law enforcement, a possible violation of civil rights.
As Tod Burke, professor of criminal justice at Radford University, told the Christian Science Monitor: “This does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure. But the bigger question is moral and legal: Is this Big Brother? And the answer really is, ‘Yes.’”
Currently, Virginia does not run familial DNA searches, nor does it have a law or policy addressing their use. The state should develop one.
A partial DNA hit does not in and of itself solve a case. And it alone should not give police the ability to obtain search warrants to compel relatives to provide a DNA sample. Instead, it should provide a substantial clue that sets police along the correct trail.
If used properly in limited circumstances — an assurance that most likely will involve much legal debate and rulings in the years to come — both society’s and individual’s interests could be protected.
As Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia, told the Times-Dispatch: “The most important question about familial DNA testing is not if we use it, since that is probably inevitable, but how and when we use it. The protocol needs to include careful controls on the science to avoid false hits and privacy protections.”
Better to craft a thoughtful policy now than wait until a high-profile case exerts emotionally charged pressure.
Recent Comments
